Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #412055
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.cellular-phone-tech |
| Subject | Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution |
| Date | 2017-04-29 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52A36DA.A2431%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <D517EAEF.9F311%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yyzwyhibjs98qf@red.lan> <D51E1C40.A0726%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <OO4KA.75055$5a6.59922@fx29.iad> <op.yzgylurkjs98qf@red.lan> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 4/29/17, 11:21 AM, in article op.yzgylurkjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>>> Intelligence - the clue is in the name "intelligence quota". >> >> It's "intelligence quotient", a ratio. It's the ratio of your score to >> the normalised score for your demographic. > > "Your demographic"? It's the same throughout the world, which is why you can > look up how well different countries do. > >> It has little general validity. > > It's a bloody good guide to how much of a moron you are. People ignorant of the test often think so... but what evidence do they have? What evidence do you have? There are correlations with people who are significantly off of average, but for the most part it is hard to show it correlating with anything other than other IQ tests. >>> And what do you think that correlates well with? >> >> IQ tests correlate well with IQ tests: you tend to get the same score >> over time, assuming the test is normalised to your age group. > > Not if you do them several times. You get better at them. You can learn to improve, which shows it is not measuring an innate ability. >> IQ tests have been renormalised many times. Nowadays, an average US >> adult would score around 120 on a test from 50-60 years ago. Related >> tests (SAT, for example), have even less general validity than IQ scores. > > People are becoming more intelligent? I find that hard to believe. I think > we're becoming stupider. Any evidence for that? >> BTW, all objective tests correlate very well with themselves, and all >> are confounded by factors the test makers have some trouble compensating >> for. It's one of the reasons that a sizeable proportion of first >> diagnoses of illness are wrong: around 30% in the emergency department, >> and typically around half that at the family doctor's. >> >> One thing nobody seems to pay much attention to is that the meaning of >> the numbers is not objective. A 70% score on an objective test may be >> Good (1st reading test on a text), Pass (2nd reading test on the same >> text some time later), or Fail (3rd and final reading test). Eg, I'd >> want my surgeon to demonstrate 100% knowledge of where my bits and >> pieces are. The Pass on Ontario's written driving test is 80%. >> >> The fixation on numbers as "objective" is a pernicious superstition. >> > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 19:21 +0100 Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 12:26 -0700
csiph-web